Insurance claim help

[supraman_nz]

Ok I will try and keep this breif but please bare with me.
A friend was lane splitting (traffic was stationary or as near as it) and a car lane changed right infront of him, only started indicating as they moved across lanes and he had no where to go but the rear of this persons car.

Person got out, she admitted she was in the wrong and got insurance details ...
He contacted his insurance co. and they sorted it out with her, she admited liability to them. Claim approved.
Last week got the work done to fix the bike (this was over 1 month since the accident.

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault. Esentially she is saying that she and i qoute "quickly looked in mirror" and "indicated and moved across lanes at the same time". She didnt really state why she doesnt think shes at fault but I think shes trying to say , she did everything to check it was clear but when she moved my friend lane splited into her path.

So this esentially comes down to was lane splitting allowed?
He has to write a letter back to give his comments on her claim. Obviously hes going to say that she didnt give enough of a mirror check to see a bike (as she admited it was a quick look) and the fact she indicated at the same time she moved.

It would be appricated if you guys could give guidence on what should be said back about this.
Thanks in advance.

EDIT - I you know of any parts of the law we could quote regarding lane splitting / mirror checking / indicating that would be great.

[MSTRS]

EDIT - I you know of any parts of the law we could quote regarding lane splitting / mirror checking / indicating that would be great.

Lane splitting is legal...although it does occupy great areas of grey.
A vehicle that is changing lanes etc, must ensure the way is clear, and must indicate at least 3 seconds prior to performing said manouevre...that is your mates defence right there (she was in the wrong)

[PirateJafa]

Also, tell them that they have already accepted liability by approving your claim against them and fixing the motorbike.

Then tell them to sod off. Slightly more politely, of course, but you get the gist.

[supraman_nz]

Even though lane splitting is a grey area - Is the only way to prove it is to say that the way was clear to park a stationary car?

[Squiggles]

Did his insurance co contact him or hers?

[supraman_nz]

not 100% sure on the contact between insurance companys. Id say that the change in story would be due to the other insurance comapny not wanting to pay.

[unrealone]

Mate this should be pretty straight forward considering she has already admitted she is at fault, the insurance have approved the claim and work completed on the bike. She can't change her mind now...

[PirateJafa]

Also, I'd just like to point you at this thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=102413&highlight=insurance+dispute+fault

[Grahameeboy]

not 100% sure on the contact between insurance companys. Id say that the change in story would be due to the other insurance comapny not wanting to pay.

I am happy to draft a letter for you..dealt with Insurance Claims a wee while..now in Broking... Grahameeboy@hotmail.com

[MarkH]

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault. Esentially she is saying that she and i qoute "quickly looked in mirror" and "indicated and moved across lanes at the same time".

Easy answer - ring insurance company and ask them "What the fuck?" She is still admitting to indicating and moving across lanes at the same time - that is illegal and puts her in the wrong. Ask the insurance company why they are even talking to you (well, to your mate) when the other driver is still admitting illegal driving! That illegal lane change is clearly the direct cause of the accident.

[MSTRS]

Easy answer - ring insurance company and ask them "What the fuck?" She is still admitting to indicating and moving across lanes at the same time - that is illegal and puts her in the wrong. Ask the insurance company why they are even talking to you (well, to your mate) when the other driver is still admitting illegal driving! That illegal lane change is clearly the direct cause of the accident.

That is it.
Of course, nothing is said of how the rider was splitting...huge speed differential, on the left side of lane, looking at that hot chick just over there...?

[Katman]

While I personally believe that lane splitting should only be done with the onus of responsibility resting fully on the lane splitter the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

[Mully]

While I personally believe that lane splitting should only be done with the onus of responsibility resting fully on the lane splitter the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

Agree completely. Which is why when I filter, I do it like a little pig-tailed girl.

[imdying]

While I personally believe that lane splitting should only be done with the onus of responsibility resting fully on the lane splitter the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.I agree somewhat, it's not where a cager expects a bike. However, she'd have done the same to a cyclist, and there's no grey area there.

[sleeqe2000]

Its a tough one and it's exactly something like this that has resulted in me cutting down drastically on lane splitting.
I would do it all the way down the Ngaranga Gorge into Welly but have had a couple of scares now where cars have changed lane without indicating.

[vgcspares]

lane splitting is not smart - I do it but accept if it goes pear shaped I've got no one else to blame but myself
clearing the claim is one thing (based simply on whether the cover applies, you have the correct license, have disclosed anything pertinent and haven't been done for DUI)
waiving the excess is something else and depends on the acceptance of liability or preponderance of proof ... and new evidence can come up later in the plot

so did they waive your friend's excess or just clear the claim ?

[CookMySock]

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault.This is normal business practice from the insurance company.

I would suggest you replied in writing and told them if that you cared nothing for their letter, and in the light of your recent legal advice, you would pursue their client in the small claims courts for your uninsured losses, medical expenses, as well as other costs, and that they should expect their client to contact them again shortly and make an additional claim to cover this, as at first glance it was the insurers' responsibility to cover them in such cases.

That will make their arse pucker.

Steve

[supraman_nz]

Man so many responses. I will pass these all onto my friend this afternoon.

Thanks Grahameeboy for the offer, I will contact you soon if he needs it.

Also funny someone should mention the Ngaranga gorge, as this is where it happend.

So in summation action should be
- Ring up insurance company to see why this is even happening after she admitted fault
- Back it up with a letter

[Shaun]

Lane splitting is legal...although it does occupy great areas of grey.
A vehicle that is changing lanes etc, must ensure the way is clear, and must indicate at least 3 seconds prior to performing said manouevre...that is your mates defence right there (she was in the wrong)


Sorry about this but, How is lane splitting legal, when we have a distance between vehicles RULE

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?

As I said, Sorry

[MarkH]

the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

Hence my suggestion of ringing the insurance company to ask: "What the fuck?"

When someone admits liability at the scene, then again later with their insurer, then denies liability while still admitting to making an illegal lane change - that's when I want my insurance company to explain to me why they are bugging me about it!

[MSTRS]

Sorry about this but, How is lane splitting legal, when we have a distance between vehicles RULE

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?

As I said, Sorry

No need to apologise.
There's been heaps of threads about lane-splitting...
The legal position is - must be done on the right side of any lane you are in, frowned on if traffic is moving at a 'reasonable' pace, speed differential not great.
No doing it in the left side of the lane...this is undertaking. No doing it between a central barrier and the solid line forming the right edge of the fast lane.
If a cop sees you - he will probably make a call as to whether you are splitting 'safely' and leave you alone - or not.

[MarkH]

No doing it in the left side of the lane

This is the part that I don't like about the law, mainly because I am always splitting on the left side of the lane. The reason is obvious when you look and the road position of the cars on the motorway, everyone drives to the right of their lane - easier to judge when you are sitting in the right hand side of the vehicle.

I personally think that they should legalise lane splitting and just have it illegal to lane split in a dangerous manner, why should someone safely lane splitting be charged just because the cop is having a bad day?

[MSTRS]

This is the part that I don't like about the law, mainly because I am always splitting on the left side of the lane. The reason is obvious when you look and the road position of the cars on the motorway, everyone drives to the right of their lane - easier to judge when you are sitting in the right hand side of the vehicle.

I personally think that they should legalise lane splitting and just have it illegal to lane split in a dangerous manner, why should someone safely lane splitting be charged just because the cop is having a bad day?

That dotted line makes all the difference. Don't do it on the left of a car, but to the right of the lane marking.
As I said, splitting is a grey area, and I agree that it should be covered by legislation. The risk is that the powers-that-be will have chinwag about it, and actually rule it out, altogether. The status quo might be best. Hmmm?

[Shaun]

That dotted line makes all the difference. Don't do it on the left of a car, but to the right of the lane marking.
As I said, splitting is a grey area, and I agree that it should be covered by legislation. The risk is that the powers-that-be will have chinwag about it, and actually rule it out, altogether. The status quo might be best. Hmmm?


Your comments RE the Grey area are what I am talking about mate, the internet can be a very dangerous place, giving people true or false information all the time.

I would bet both my things, that Lane splitting is tech a NO NO!

And if accidents were to happen whilst this was going on, there IS a way out for the Insurance companies Technically

Covered by legislationas you say, IT Already is! Based on the legislation of following distance!!!!

It is IMPOSSIBLE to lane split, without following to Close.:gob:

The police will always ignore lane splitting, as it is practical, and they have to much shite to deal with already with all the loosers out there, BUT if lane splitting can be proved prior to an accident, they HAVE to do what they have to do, and that is what the letter of the rule book says.

POLICE MEN ON THIS SITE-- Please quote the law on this, and lets try to protect any one else from falling into this confort zone, of thinking lane splitting is teck OK, safe if done safely, But tech a NO NO.

[CookMySock]

IE, if you can get close enough to lane split, you are following to close in the first place?Thats daft. How would it even be possible for cars to pass legally if that were the case?

Steve

[MSTRS]

Your comments RE the Grey area are what I am talking about mate, the internet can be a very dangerous place, giving people true or false information all the time.



Yep...technically a No No.
However, it is still 'ignored' when sense is used. I did find this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1828553&postcount=182). can't find a (known) cop/s post that talks about splitting at all.

[The Stranger]

Ok I will try and keep this breif but please bare with me.
A friend was lane splitting (traffic was stationary or as near as it) and a car lane changed right infront of him, only started indicating as they moved across lanes and he had no where to go but the rear of this persons car.

Person got out, she admitted she was in the wrong and got insurance details ...
He contacted his insurance co. and they sorted it out with her, she admited liability to them. Claim approved.
Last week got the work done to fix the bike (this was over 1 month since the accident.

Yesterday - He got a letter from the insurance co. saying that she is now disputing fault. Esentially she is saying that she and i qoute "quickly looked in mirror" and "indicated and moved across lanes at the same time". She didnt really state why she doesnt think shes at fault but I think shes trying to say , she did everything to check it was clear but when she moved my friend lane splited into her path.

So this esentially comes down to was lane splitting allowed?
He has to write a letter back to give his comments on her claim. Obviously hes going to say that she didnt give enough of a mirror check to see a bike (as she admited it was a quick look) and the fact she indicated at the same time she moved.

It would be appricated if you guys could give guidence on what should be said back about this.
Thanks in advance.

EDIT - I you know of any parts of the law we could quote regarding lane splitting / mirror checking / indicating that would be great.

He "has" to write a letter to which insurance company?
Often the "other" insurance company will send you a sheep letter (looks like a sheep, but it's really a wolf) trying to trick you into accepting liability. If that is the case here, either ignore it or pass it on to his/your insurer to deal with. If he/you get a call from the other insurer do not engage them, instead abuse them soundly for trying to get you to accept liability and refer them to your insurer.

Random thoughtson the incident, though I accept I don't know the answer.
She has to indicate for 3 seconds before moving.
She has to check the way is clear.
I believe that lane splitting is naughty and not strictly allowed, however, I assume she was pulling into a space in the traffic in the other lane. Were your "friend" in that space (even at the very back of it) I would argue that I had just finished overtaking when she pulled into my path, I wasn't actually splitting at the time.

[The Stranger]

Agree completely. Which is why when I filter, I do it like a little pig-tailed girl.

You squeal with delight?

[PirateJafa]

So in summation action should be
- Ring up insurance company to see why this is even happening after she admitted fault
- Back it up with a letter

NO.

Just write them a letter and tell them that as they have already accepted liability(by repairing the bike), the case is CLOSED.

They're just trying to scare you into getting some money back. DON'T let them fuck you/him around.

[p.dath]

When payment is made by an insurance it is usualy done on the terms of a "full and final settlement".

So tell them that the matter has been settled. It's final.

[Shaun]

Yep...technically a No No.
However, it is still 'ignored' when sense is used. I did find this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1828553&postcount=182). can't find a (known) cop/s post that talks about splitting at all.


ok, so PLEASE stop saying it is ok on the internet, as there a lot of young people on here, who may read that statement and think it is ok because they read it some where.

Sorry to be acting so boring, but some times the WHOLE facts and truth need to be spelled out

[Mystic13]

With insurance there is usually a clause that says if you accept liability prior to any cliam you void the claim. Insurance company's rarely use the out.

In this case you say she accepted liability to you. And then later to your insurer.

If she has accepted it in writing or has stated to your insurer she's accepted it then I think it's case done. I'd be getting the insurer to advise that she had accepted to you and them separately and with the view that she is fault and her acceptance to two separate parties that the matter is now at an end.

If your insurer has paid for your repair that has no bearing on the at fault party and you could still lose no claims bonuses etc.

First port of call is your insurer.
Secondly don't communicate with their insurer ever.
Thirdly go all out for the "she's already accepted liability line". You're now working through your insurer and need to make sure they don't cave in. So a letter to them ASAP would be useful.

Most insurers operate under knock for knock, meaning they recover nothing from her insurance. She may be fighting to retain her no claims. Her insurer may not be aware that she had agreed to the claim.

Have fun with the whole thing. I usually get people to agree on the spot in writing before they leave the scene. it saves so much time if they change their minds later.

I'm withe the lanesplitting is legal, her lane change is illegal and you can hardly argue you didn't see a motorcycle headlight shining straight in your mirror when changing.

Good luck with it.

[MSTRS]

ok, so PLEASE stop saying it is ok on the internet, as there a lot of young people on here, who may read that statement and think it is ok because they read it some where.

Sorry to be acting so boring, but some times the WHOLE facts and truth need to be spelled out

I'm going to argue the point here. Lane splitting IS legal...when the traffic is stationary. The grey areas begin when the traffic is moving...

[mossy1200]

I had similar issue with a guy that came down a local winding road in town speeding and in the wet.When he saw us he braked hard ,lost traction and slid onto our side of the road hitting us head on(we were in our car not bike).
His four wheel drive wrote off our convertable.He accepted liability on the spot and our insurance company contacted him and he accepted liability again.
A few weeks later we were contacted by our insurance company and told we would need to pay our excess because the other insurance company was now claiming that the accident liability was in doubt.

We stuck to our guns and said no to paying excess on the grounds that liabilty had been sorted the minute the other driver admitted they were in the wrong.

The rule is that if you accept liability then YOU ARE LIABLE and this is why you dont accept liabilty or make any indication that your driving is at fault.

If you ever get someone who doesnt accept liability and they are in the wrong then fake an injury.If there is injury involved then the police must attend and will decide who is in the wrong in a report which is used in insurance claims and is final.

As far as im aware lane splitting is legal but you must indicate as a passing move and stay on the rt.You are not alowed to drive down the left hand shoulder of the road as this is classed passing on the left which you cant do unless the vehicle you are passing is turning right.

If your friend sticks to his guns then it will go away.Tell him/her to dispute that he/she has been at fault.The driver changing lanes is required by law to indicate for no less than three seconds before turning or changing lanes.

Also be aware that insurance company knock for knock means they dont always pay each other just to repair their own clients car.
Its serves the insurance companies well when there is no liabilty established as then both companies save the excess figure instead of just one company.

[supraman_nz]

Well the call has been made to the insurance company and esentially they said that the two stories are different (in the detail) and that its likely to go to court. When the subject was brought up regarding her being liable as shes already admitted it , the person was rather vauge in anwsering that.

Just a few notes to this - the letter was from my friends insurance company with items attatched from the other persons insurance company.
and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

[MSTRS]

Well the call has been made to the insurance company and esentially they said that the two stories are different (in the detail) and that its likely to go to court. When the subject was brought up regarding her being liable as shes already admitted it , the person was rather vauge in anwsering that.

Just a few notes to this - the letter was from my friends insurance company with items attatched from the other persons insurance company.
and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

If there were 10 people there...there'd be 10 differing stories.
I think you will find that her insurer is trying it on. From your earlier post/s, liability has already been accepted and the claim processed through to completion. Changing stories now is a desperate move on her part to wriggle out of paying the excess. Of course, her insurer will be more than happy to try that path too. Just tell your insurer to pass on the message that it had been sorted as it happened, and you'll see them in court.
I'm betting they'll back off, once they see you're not a walkover.
At least, your mate should...:blink:

[The Stranger]

and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

Something seem amiss here. They have a witness don't they?
Doesn't that make it at least 2 against one?

[The Stranger]

Just tell your insurer to pass on the message that it had been sorted as it happened, and you'll see them in court.
I'm betting they'll back off, once they see you're not a walkover.
At least, your mate should...:blink:

I'm not so sure.
They will use small claims wont they.
Both costs and burden of proof is much lower - along the lines of the adjudicators opinion on the balance of probability.
The acceptance of liability clause is in a contract between her and her insurer and gives her insurer an out should they elect to use it.
Why should this extend to the mate?

[MSTRS]

The acceptance of liability clause is in a contract between her and her insurer and gives her insurer an out should they elect to use it.
Why should this extend to the mate?

Surely there isn't a clause that says 'Should the insured admit liability, and we pay out, then we reserve the right to renege on the deal later' ??
I wrote it aimed at the poster. Who says it was his mate. I just forgot that detail...

[supraman_nz]

Something seem amiss here. They have a witness don't they?
Doesn't that make it at least 2 against one?

There were obviously loads of witnesses as it happened in rush hour traffic. Neither party actually got contact details of anyone else at the time (i assume the rest of the traffic just kept on going). There was no one else in the car that was involved. So its bike rider v car drivers version.

[The Stranger]

Surely there isn't a clause that says 'Should the insured admit liability, and we pay out, then we reserve the right to renege on the deal later' ??
I wrote it aimed at the poster. Who says it was his mate. I just forgot that detail...

There is NO contract between the him on one hand and her insurer on the other, so it is largely irrelevent what is in the other insurer's contract. That is of no consequence, You can imagine whatever clause you like - no contract exists so it is all moot.

His insurer may well have acted in their client's (his) best interests and got the claim processed promptly, believing his word, only to find out subsequently (when they go to the other insurer) that there is a dispute.
Should his insurer have held up payment until it was settled - even if this takes 12 months or more? Does that make the dispute any less valid?

There *may* be something at common law that says she has irrevocably accepted liability, however I am unaware of this. Also, should it reach small claims, he had better be ready to prove this. My experience is that small claims don't get too hung up on any but the simplest laws.

[Mom]

I know of someone who ran up the arse of another car in rush hour traffic. Cops were called the whole 9 yards. Yes they got a ticket for failing to stop, they also received a EBA charge on top as you do on yur way to work in the morning :gob:

Anyway...a claim was made on their insurance for the repair to the car that was hit along with the car being driven. Both cars were repaired.

All good until they appeared in court and were convicted of EBA. As they walked out of the court a process server approached and served some papers on them. Nett effect here, 6 months walking, a fine of what ever it was back then plus costs and a demand for payment from the insurance company for reimbursement of the costs of repair to both vehicles.

Insurance companies can and do repair vehicles, and then ask for their money back :yes:

[Pegasus]

It all comes down to his insurer trying to recover costs from her insurer.

The Insurers will probably both want it to be deemed "Contributory" so both claimants pay an excess, and both parties also lose their no claims bonus. It sucks but it is a “No Claims Bonus”, not a “No Fault Bonus”.

Best case senerio is if his insurer already has something in writing (like a copy of her claim form) admiting liability. I am not sure, but think that under the Privacy Act you have the right to view and correct all information that your Insurer holds about you.

If it all turns to custard:

[Grahameeboy]

While I personally believe that lane splitting should only be done with the onus of responsibility resting fully on the lane splitter the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

His Insurer's have approved...that does not affect liability..it is the other Insurer's arguing....that's how I read it

[Grahameeboy]

I'm going to argue the point here. Lane splitting IS legal...when the traffic is stationary. The grey areas begin when the traffic is moving...

Agreed....lane splitting when traffic moving is dangerous and with cars everywhere..the bike will be there one minute and not the next...

I lane split a bit but tend to hop between gaps and see what is happening ahead....a bike doing say 70k on the motorway in traffic is not giving other drivers a chance to see them...

I never lane split near on ramps...cars tend to jostle for lanes so potential hazards....

Personally I thing there is contributory negligence

[madkiwi]

who says your mate was splitting traffic at all and not just in her blind spot and she obviously didnt do a head check. unless any witnessess stopped, deny it, she didnt see him or she wouldnt have moved across.